Beteckning:________________
Akademin för utbildning och ekonomi
Readability
- an Analysis of English Textbooks
for Swedish School Years 7-9
Liselott Langeborg
June 2010
C-Essay, 15 credits
English Linguistics
English C
Supervisor: Tore Nilsson
Examiner: Charlotte Engblom
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze texts from four English textbook series for
Swedish school years 7-9 as regards their readability and to investigate whether the
text difficulty progresses within series with grade level and with each assigned
difficulty level. The study also wished to make comparisons between these textbook
series to determine if they are equivalent as regards their average readability level.
The readability formulas Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid in Microsoft Word
2007 was used for calculation of the readability grade levels of a selection of 231 texts
from the series Good Stuff, Happy, Time and Wings. The results from both formulas
indicated that the texts in general become more difficult for each school year and
with assigned level. However, the study showed that there are differences among the
four series as regards their average difficulty levels and that there is a great difficulty
range among texts.
Keywords:
English textbook series, Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula, Flesch Reading Ease Formula,
Readability
Preface
I would like to thank Thomas for his great support.
i
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 AIM AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 READABILITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 The Development of Readability Formulas in Short ............................................................................. 2
1.2.2 Why Readability Formulas? .................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.3 Advantages and Limitation of Readability Formulas ............................................................................ 5
1.2.4 A Focus on Two Readability Formulas .................................................................................................. 7
1.2.5 Previous Research on Readability in English Textbooks in Sweden ..................................................... 8
2 METHOD...................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 MATERIAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Good Stuff ........................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Happy.................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.3 Time .................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.4 Wings .................................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 DATA ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.3 METHODS OF ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Flesch Reading Ease ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.3.2 Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula .................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Some Special Cases for the Formulas in Microsoft Word 2007 .......................................................... 14
2.3.4 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 HYPOTHESIS ................................................................................................................................................... 15
3 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 READABILITY PROGRESS OF TEXTBOOKS WITHIN SERIES ........................................................................................... 16
3.1.1 Good Stuff ........................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.2 Happy.................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1.3 Time .................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1.4 Wings .................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2 A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TEXTBOOK SERIES FOR EACH YEAR............................................................................. 19
3.3 A COMPARISON OF LEVELS WITHIN TEXTBOOK SERIES............................................................................................. 19
3.3.1 Good Stuff ........................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Happy.................................................................................................................................................. 21
3.3.3 Time .................................................................................................................................................... 22
4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 24
4.1 READABILITY PROGRESS OF TEXTBOOKS WITHIN SERIES ........................................................................................... 25
4.2 A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TEXTBOOK SERIES FOR EACH YEAR............................................................................. 26
4.3 A COMPARISON OF LEVELS WITHIN TEXTBOOK SERIES............................................................................................. 27
4.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ............................................................................................................... 28
FINAL REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDICES
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Appendix 5:
How to Enable Readability Statistics in Word 2007
Texts Analyzed in Good Stuff with Limitations
Texts Analyzed in Happy with Limitations
Texts Analyzed in Time with Limitations
Texts Analyzed in Wings with Limitations
1
1 Introduction
How comprehensible written texts are has interested linguists and teachers for a long
time. Because of the numerous English textbook series available to choose from for
Swedish compulsory school teachers, it would be interesting to compare such series
as regards their comprehensibility. One way to do this is to focus on the readability
in a selection of these books, which is what this study does.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2010), readability is defined as
‚ease with which a text may be scanned or read‛. For experts in the field of reading,
however, the term readability is more specifically the ‛problem of matching reader
and text‛ (Gilliland, 1972: 12) and it suggests the difficulty level of a written text by
‚an objective numerical score obtained by applying a readability formula‛ (Fry, 2002:
286). These latter definitions of readability will be used throughout this essay.
1.1 Aim and Scope
This study compares texts taken from four different English textbook series for
school years 7-9, one series from each of four major publishing companies in Sweden,
as regards their readability. The readability has been calculated with the Flesch
Reading Ease formula and the Flesch-Kincaid Readability formula, which both
measure word and sentence lengths. Other textual features and reader aspects that
may affect text comprehension have not been included in the study. The main
purpose of this essay has been to answer the following theoretical questions:
1. Is there, according to these readability formulas, an increase in the average
readability score of texts within each of the textbook series from school year 7
to 9?
2. Are the average readability scores comparable between the four different
textbook series?
3. Do these readability formulas suggest that the average readability scores of
texts within the leveled textbooks increase with text level?
2
1.2 Readability
1.2.1 The Development of Readability Formulas in Short
The classic readability studies started as early as in the late 19 th century (DuBay, 2004:
10) and the first formula to measure readability was published in 1923 (Fry, 2002:
286; Klare, 1988: 15). Since then, more than 200 different readability formulas and
more than 1000 studies in the field have been published (DuBay, 2004: 2). However,
of these formulas, only 12, at the most, are widely used (Gunning, 2003: 176).
At the time of the first readability formula, readability studies were generally
focused on ‚vocabulary aspects such as difficulty, diversity and range‛ (Chall, 1988:
6). Starting in the late 1920s, focus shifted towards examinations of numerous
different aspects which were believed to be possible variables of text difficulty (Chall,
1988: 6). Over the years these variables have been reduced into semantic and
syntactic factors, leaving stylistic factors aside (Klare, 1988: 16). Still today, the
majority of the established readability formulas test the comprehension of a text by
using only a combination of the two components syntactic and semantic difficulty; the
former often measured by average sentence length and the latter often measured by
word length (counting letters or syllables) or frequency of unfamiliar words (Davison
& Green: 2; Fry, 2002: 287; Gilliland, 1972: 84; Gunning, 2003: 176). These variables
were already from the very beginning of readability suggested by Sherman to be
predicators of text difficulty (DuBay, 2006: 2). Out of numerous statistically
measurable factors, they are also the two that in studies have correlated the best with
readers’ understanding of texts (DuBay, 2006: 42; Gray & Leary, 1972: 115-116;
Gunning, 2003: 175).
In the last decade focus within school has been on leveling systems, which are
based on more aspects of the text than the language itself (Stein Dzaldov & Peterson,
2005: 222). However, readability formulas are still alive and offer a more objective
alternative as they can be calculated by computers (Fry, 2002: 287-289).
3
1.2.2 Why Readability Formulas?
Many studies have shown the importance of matching students with suitable texts at
their individual levels to facilitate and enhance their learning and even to motivate
the students (Gunning, 2003: 175). Such a match is supposed to enable students’
‚optimal learning gains‛ (Zakaluk & Samuels, 1988: 140). Gilliland (1972: 12) also
concludes that appropriately challenging texts ease both understanding and learning.
McCormick (1995) accounts for three different levels for students’ understanding of
texts:
Independent level
Instructional level
Frustrational level
Words recognized
96-100%
90-95%
0-89%
Text comprehension
90-100%
70-89%
0-70%
(Freely from Burns, 2006: 34)
Students need material at both the independent and instructional levels to use in
different situations (Burns, 2006: 34). Gunning (2003: 182) also believes that such an
independent level is preferable to the frustrational level.
To use readability formulas in order to match a text with its reader is also in
alignment with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (DuBay, 2004: 54; Fry,
2002: 291), especially if students receive material ‚slightly over their current level of
development‛, which is what experts in reading recommend for instructional
reading (DuBay, 2004: 56). However, the students’ motivation is imperative for
understanding (Fry, 1988: 87) and can make a student understand a text well above
his normal capacity (Fry, 2002: 289). This is why Gunning (2003: 184) stresses that it is
mainly materials that the students are required to read that need matching. Two
studies from the 1970s support this by showing that readability is most significant for
uninterested readers (DuBay, 2004: 29).
Such a matching has, since the beginning of readability studies, been the main
purpose of the field (Fry, 1988: 78). Gunning (2003: 175) points out that the matching
can be done in several different ways but that every method has its benefits and its
shortcomings. Studies have shown that readability formulas ‚correlate well with
comprehension difficulty as measured by reading tests‛ (DuBay, 2004: 15). Davison
4
(1988: 36) states that ‚there are no simple, convenient alternatives [to readability
formulas] that would assign more accurate levels‛. DuBay (2004: 3) even asserts that
they are the only objective method for determining the difficulty of written texts.
The use of readability formulas are therefore the most common method
(Gilliland, 1972: 89; Gunning, 2003: 175). In fact, readability formulas are used by 89%
of the textbook publishers in the USA in order to estimate the reading grade level of
their texts (DuBay, 2004: 55-56). Such books are generally ‚written at least on grade
level‛ (Gunning, 2003: 184). That readability is important for written educational
material is also indicated by the results from a study by Klare from 1973 which
showed a correlation between the Flesch Reading Ease scores of the material and
‚the probability of students completing the course‛ (DuBay, 2004: 31).
Readability formulas are sometimes used when writing texts, in order to adapt
them to a broad reading audience (Fry, 2002: 290; Gunning, 2003: 184; Vogel &
Washburne, 2006: 18). The importance of considering readability is evident in that
‚many best-selling adult novels are written at the eighth-grade level‛ (Fry, 2002:
290). However, readability formulas do not consider all factors involved in the
‚production of readable writing‛ (Klare, 1988: 27). Therefore they are not
recommended to use as guidelines for writing, but more appropriate to use at the
end of the writing process (Chall, 1988: 11-12; Fry, 1988: 91-92; Hall, 2006: 69; Klare,
1988: 32).
The formulas are also used within other fields where reading comprehension is
essential. That there is such a need is suggested by indications that American adults
in general read ‚at the 7th grade level‛ (DuBay, 2004: 1). For instance readability
researchers have assisted in decreasing the readability of ‚front-page stories‛ in
newspapers (DuBay, 2006: 98). In addition, several states in the USA have laws that
control the language in important public documents to ensure comprehensibility of
vital written information (DuBay, 2004: 55; Fry, 1988: 78).
5
1.2.3 Advantages and Limitation of Readability Formulas
The main strength of readability formulas is that they are relatively easy to use; an
applicability which has increased with the development of computerized programs
(Burns, 2006). Another strength is that the formulas are highly validated through
many studies (Fry, 1977, cited in Fry, 2002: 291). They are also objective (DuBay, 2004;
Fry, 2002). Worth noticing is however that ‚different methods used by different
computer programs to count sentences, words, and syllables can also cause
discrepancies – even though they use the same formula‛ (DuBay, 2004: 56).
Although the most common readability formulas correlate well with each other,
occasionally they disagree as much as three grade levels (Gunning, 2003: 183). This
inconsistency between formulas is partly explained by their different starting points
(Klare, 1988: 31). However, even though formulas may not provide exact difficulty
levels for individual texts, they are better at indicating the progression of difficulty
level between texts (Gunning, 2003: 181). Therefore some researchers argue that
readability formulas are precarious for matching a specific text with any individual
and that they should be used more generally (Anderson & Davison, 1988: 23; Bruce &
Rubin, 1988: 19).
It is imperative to stress that readability formulas cannot ‚measure all the
ingredients essential to comprehension‛ (Gilliland, 1972: 84). In order for them to do
so they would be too complicated and neither objective nor easy to use. Some critics,
such as Gilliland, state that ‚the accuracy of a measure decreases with its ease of
application‛ (1972: 84). However, others claim that there is scientific evidence ‚that
the addition of attributes does not increase the reliability of the formulas‛ (Binkley,
1988: 117). Klare states that a formula with more than two variables ‚usually
increases effort more than predictiveness‛ and that formulas with two variables
thereby are sufficient for ‚rough screening‛ (1988: 31).
That readability formulas have always been limited is a fact known to all
readability researchers (Davison & Green, 1988: 2; Fry, 2002: 289; Gunning, 2003:
180). Even L.A. Sherman, who is considered to have started the classic readability
studies in the late 19th century, stated that the readability of a text depends on the
6
reader (DuBay, 2006: 3). Bruce & Rubin (1988: 20) agrees that the ‚ultimate judge of
readability is the reader, not a formula‛.
Readability formulas cannot, nor are they designed to, assign exact values of
comprehensibility; instead they offer numerical approximations of text difficulty
(Binkley, 1988: 117; Bruce & Rubin, 1988: 21; DuBay, 2004: 56). Therefore the formulas
need to be used carefully and also generally be complemented with other methods in
the process of choosing appropriate texts (Gunning, 2003: 182; Klare, 1988: 32). The
readability formulas also ‚become poorer predictors of difficulty at high grade levels
(especially college) where content weighs more heavily‛ (Klare, 1988: 31).
Furthermore readability formulas imply that ‚the reader’s skill in dealing with
increasingly difficult words rises in the same proportion as his skill in dealing with
increasingly difficult sentences‛, which need not be the case (Gilliland, 1972: 98).
One limitation of formulas is that they only focus on text features and ignore
the cognitive process (Zakaluk & Samuels, 1988: 122). Also excluded from formulas
are specific internal factors such as the reader’s social and cultural background
(Bruce & Rubin, 1988: 19) together with motivation, interests and previous
knowledge (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1986, cited in Stein Dzaldov & Peterson, 2005:
223; Bruce & Rubin, 1988: 8; DuBay, 2004). Such factors cannot easily be integrated in
the formulas (Klare, 1988: 30).
There are also many external, textual factors excluded from formulas such as
text layout and the potential presence of visual aids (Burns, 2006), writing style,
organization and exposition (Davison, 1988: 38) and ‚typographical factors‛
(Gilliland, 1972: 96). These might be easier to integrate in a formula. However, many
of them are difficult to measure statistically, which means that the objectiveness of
the formulas would get lost.
Another limitation of readability formulas is that they do not take deeper
textual structures into account. It is important to remember that ‚a low readability
score is no guarantee of true ease of reading‛ (Bruce & Rubin, 1988: 12). Instead it
might render other comprehensibility problems. For instance formulas generate the
same score, independent of whether the word order within a sentence is changed
7
(Chall, 1988: 10-11). Furthermore, an overextension of short words and sentences
would render a low readability score but might result in an incoherent text (Bruce &
Rubin, 1988: 12-13). Moreover, the lack of connectives may very well result in a
confusing text but it would not be shown in the readability scores (Anderson &
Davison, 1988: 32-33).
It is also essential to point out that longer words do not necessarily equal harder
words (Anderson & Davison, 1988: 28; Gilliland, 1972: 96; Gunning, 2003: 176).
Similarly, although there is in fact a ‚correlation in English between long sentences
and complex sentences‛ (Davison, 1988: 43), a short sentence may be more complex
than a longer one and thereby harder to understand (Davison & Green, 1988: 4; Fry,
1988: 8; Gilliland, 1972: 96).
1.2.4 A Focus on Two Readability Formulas
Two common readability formulas are Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid; both
included in Microsoft Word’s Spelling & Grammar (Microsoft Office Online, 2010).
1.2.4.1 Flesch Reading Ease
For his first formula from 1943 Rudolf Flesch used three variables (Flesch, 2006: 99).
In order to make the formula easier to apply, he modified it and published his new,
Reading Ease, formula in 1948 (republished as Flesch, 2006). According to that study,
the new formula was only slightly less correlated with the criterion used for both
formulas, namely a 75% comprehension of the McCall-Crabbs’ Standard test lessons in
reading (Flesch, 2006: 100-104). In other words comprehension was interpreted as
getting 75% right on these tests on written texts. The formulas were to match a
student’s typical grade level with such a comprehension of texts with given
individual readability scores (Flesch, 2006).
Flesch’s new formula, the Reading Ease formula uses only two variables. The
first one, average sentence length in words, remains from the original formula and had,
according to earlier studies, been shown to measure sentence complexity indirectly.
In a similar way, other studies had shown that the second variable, average word
8
length in syllables, indirectly measures word complexity (Flesch, 2006). Flesch (2006:
104) also concluded that this new second variable correlated well (.87) with the
second variable used in his original formula (number of affixes) and was easier to
apply.
Eventually, the Flesch Reading Ease grew to be the most common formula, at
least for other than pure educational purposes (Klare, 1988: 20). Studies have also
established it to be ‚one of the most tested and reliable‛ (DuBay, 2006: 97). However,
one study indicates that readability formulas which are based on syllable counts
underrate ‚nonfiction‛ texts and that this may depend on the particular terminology
used (Gunning, 2003: 178). The Flesch Reading Ease has been shown to correlate very
well (.98) with the Dale-Chall Readability Formula (Gilliland, 1972: 92), which in turn
has been carefully validated and was the most common in schools for a long time
(Klare, 1988: 18). Flesch’s formula has also been validated against other formulas and
against ‚expert judgment‛ (with correlations of .61-.84) (Gilliland, 1972: 92).
1.2.4.2 Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula
In 1976, the Flesch formula was once again revised; this time in order for it to
immediately generate a grade level. The study was ordered by the U.S. Navy and did
not include Flesch himself (DuBay, 2006: 97). The new formula is now called the
Flesch-Kincaid readability formula and is one of the Navy Readability Indexes
(DuBay, 2004: 50). It is also called the Flesch Grade-Scale formula and the Kincaid
formula (DuBay, 2006: 97). It ‚is widely used in industry‛ (Fry, 2002: 290).
A study by Klare shows a high level of agreement between The Flesch Reading
Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid; they do not vary more than two grades and usually
agree within a grade (Klare, 1988: 24-25). Flesch-Kincaid uses the same variables as
the Flesch Reading Ease but the relationship between them has been altered.
1.2.5 Previous Research on Readability in English Textbooks in Sweden
A study by Björnsson and Tideholm (1974) uses the Swedish additive readability
formula lix for determining the readability of English texts for Swedish schools. Lix
9
measures average sentence length and percentage of long words. Results from the
study show that lix is an equally good predictor of text difficulty for English as for
Swedish texts (Björnsson & Tideholm, 1974: 13). Furthermore the study shows that
the readability in English Textbooks from that time generally increase with grade
level. It also shows that the books in the study intended for ‚Särskild kurs‛ in
English generally score higher than those intended for ‚Allmän kurs‛.
10
2 Method
2.1 Material
The sources studied were the four English textbook-series Good Stuff, Happy, Time,
and Wings; all intended for years 7-9 in Swedish schools. A selection of 231 texts from
these books was chosen for analysis. The sources were scanned with Brother DCP117C and converted to text by the program ControlCenter2 for study in Microsoft
Office Word 2007.
2.1.1 Good Stuff
The language in Good Stuff is modern and casual and the texts are labeled according
to difficulty level; the green texts are easier than the yellow ones and blue texts are
mostly dialogue (Liber, 2010). Word lists are always presented in connection with
each chapter.
For this study the first green and the first yellow text from each chapter in Good
Stuff B (Coombs et al., 2002), Good Stuff C (Coombs, Bayard & Hagvärn, 2003) and
Good Stuff D (Coombs, Bayard & Hagvärn, 2004) was chosen. If a chapter does not
consist of both these levels, that chapter was excluded from analysis. For a list of all
analyzed texts, see appendix 2.
2.1.2 Happy
Happy has texts at three different levels of difficulty; A, B and C (Gleerups, 2010).
Word lists are always presented in connection with each chapter.
Happy Textbooks No. 1-3 (Peterson et al. 2004, 2005, 2006) were incorporated in
this study. In these books the first text at each level of each chapter was chosen.
Chapters which do not consist of all three levels were excluded from analysis. For a
list of all analyzed texts, see appendix 3.
2.1.3 Time
The books in this series each have a basic course with texts on A and B level. As a
complement there are Tracks at the end of each book for further reading. Texts on
11
level B are slightly longer and more substantial than texts on level A; the latter focus
on words and phrases while the former introduce new grammatical subject matters
(Bonnier Utbildning, 2010). Word lists are gathered at the end of each book.
The books First Time, Second Time and Third Time (Bermheden et al., 1996, 1997,
1998) were included in this study. All texts on level A and B in each book were
analyzed, see appendix 4.
2.1.4 Wings
Wings is a textbook series for the basic course in English (Natur & Kultur, 2010). The
texts are not divided according to level. Word lists are gathered at the end of each
book.
The three books Wings Base Book 7-9 (Glover et al., 2001, 2002, 2003) were
included in this study. All texts with headlines surrounded by dots were analyzed, as
these were interpreted to be the main texts in the books. For a list of all analyzed
texts, see appendix 5.
2.2 Data
Data were retrieved from the four textbook series that constitute the primary sources.
For detailed information on which texts and which parts of them were analyzed, see
appendices 2-5. First, the chosen texts were scanned. Then the converted texts were
copied to Microsoft Office Word 2007 where they were proofread and corrected one
by one.
For manual calculations readability formulas are usually used on samples of
100 words. However, since some texts in the textbooks used in this study were
shown to be diverse, the complete running texts were included for analysis and not
just samples from them. To use complete texts is also recommended for readability
research since it gives a more reliable result (Klare, 1988: 31).
12
2.3 Methods of Analysis
Initially, the Dale-Chall Readability Formula was considered for this study, since it
for long has been the most common in schools (Klare, 1988: 18). However, it required
far too many manual corrections than was possible to manage within the scope of
this study. Instead the Flesch Reading Ease was chosen, since it has been shown to
correlate very well with the Dale-Chall formula (Gilliland, 1972: 92). As a
complement the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula was chosen. In modern time both
these formulas are embedded in Microsoft Word’s Spelling & Grammar and are
therefore easily calculated. (For detailed information about how to enable the
readability statistics for Microsoft Office Word 2007, see appendix 1; for other
versions of Microsoft Word, visit Microsoft Office Online).
Beware that the Flesch Reading Ease formula and the Flesch-Kincaid are
dependent on the programming behind them and that different applications may
generate different readability scores of these formulas on the same text, which a
study by Mailloux et al. (1995, cited in Hall, 2006: 69) has shown. However, for this
study, the goal was not to assign an exact readability score of each individual text but
to find the progress, if any, between them. It was assumed that any readability
formula, in sprite of small alterations within them, should be able to do that. It was
also assumed that the application in Word is more accurate than most other
applications available on the Internet.
2.3.1 Flesch Reading Ease
The Flesch Reading Ease formula is:
Reading Ease Score = 206.835 – (1.015 x ASL) – (84.6 x ASW)
ASL = average sentence length (number of words divided by number of sentences)
ASW = average number of syllables per word (number of syllables divided by number of words)
(DuBay, 2006: 97; Microsoft Office Online, 2010)
The Reading Ease formula can be used to analyze either a complete text or
appropriate samples (Flesch, 2006). For the word count, contractions and hyphenated
13
words are to be counted as one word and numbers and letters separated by space are
to be counted as individual words. Sentences may be separated by colons or
semicolons. As regards the syllables of numbers and symbols, they are to be counted
‚according to the way they are normally read aloud‛ (Flesch, 2006: 106).
How to interpret the readability scores are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Interpretation Table for Flesch Reading Ease Scores
Reading
Ease Score
Style
Description
Estimated US
Reading Grade1
Average
Sentence
Length
Average Number
of Syllables per
100 Words
90-100
80-90
70-80
60-70
50-60
30-50
0-30
Very Easy
Easy
Fairly Easy
Standard
Fairly difficult
Difficult
Very difficult
5th grade
6th grade
7th grade
th
8 – 9th grade
10th – 12th grade
13th – 16th grade
College graduate
-8
11
14
17
21
25
29
-123
131
139
147
155
167
192-
(Freely from Flesch, cited in Klare, 1988: 21)
As seen in Table 1 the Reading Ease formula ranges from 0 to 100, with easier texts
scoring higher. If a text scores for instance 100, it is implied to be understood by an
average student starting 5th grade in the USA. In other words it is implied that such a
student would manage to get 75% right on a tests on the text in question (Flesch,
2006). According to Flesch (2006: 107) a text with a Reading Ease score of 100 should
be ‚easy for any literate person‛ while a score of 0 represents a text that is
‚practically unreadable‛.
Klare (1988: 21) points out that the grade levels of the formula compensate for
the fact that reading comprehension is generally curvilinear. This is apparent in
Table 1 as the grade ranges increases with each level of difficulty beginning at the 7th
grade. For the 5th to 7th grade, each ‚point on the formula scale corresponds to onetenth of a grade‛ (Flesch, 2006: 103).
1
For the Swedish equivalence in school years, decrease each grade by one.
14
2.3.2 Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula
A simplified version does exist (DuBay, 2004: 50; Fry, 2002: 290). However, the
version embedded in Microsoft Office Word 2007, and thereby used in this study, is
more exact:
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = 0.39 x ASL + 11.8 x ASW – 15.59
ASL = average sentence length (number of words divided by number of sentences)
ASW = average number of syllables per word (number of syllables divided by number of words)
(DuBay, 2004: 50; Microsoft Office Online, 2010)
According to Microsoft Office Online (2010) Flesch-Kincaid estimates written
material ‚on a U.S. school grade level‛. DuBay (2004: 52) stresses that the FleschKincaid formula in ‚Word’s Readability Statistics is defective in that it only goes to
the 12th grade‛. This does however not hold true for Microsoft Office Word 2007 in
which much higher grade levels was found in experiments within the present study.
2.3.3 Some Special Cases for the Formulas in Microsoft Word 2007
It was noticed in the present study that Microsoft Word 2007 does not always
manage to interpret the syllables of numbers, symbols and abbreviations correctly
(e.g. to write 11th instead of eleventh, $ instead of dollars and km instead of kilometers
changes the scores). Furthermore, in Word 2007, phrases which end with colons or
semicolons are not considered to be full sentences, although they should be
according to Flesch (2006:107). No manual corrections for these flaws were made.
The only correction which was made was to help the program to interpret
sentences with pauses. Sentences written as ‚But Peter . . . he wants to go!‛ are
interpreted by Word 2007 as one sentence while ‚But Peter. . . he wants to go!‛
wrongly is counted as two separate sentences. In these cases corrections were made
by inserting a space before the first full stop. In the same way phrases such as ‚But
Peter . . .‛ were interpreted as full sentences and thereby manually corrected to ‚But
Peter. . .‛.
15
2.3.4 Analysis
Before running the analysis in Word it is very important that the entire document is
marked for the same language, in order for the application to analyze all the text
(Microsoft Office Online, 2010). Thus, before each analysis all text in the document
was marked and the language was changed to American English. This was done
regardless of the language used for the text in question in order to get a more reliable
comparison between texts.
The readability analysis was run for each text individually. The mean value and
standard deviations of the texts according to level and book was calculated
separately. Since this study is descriptive no comparative statistics were used.
Important to stress is that the mean readability value for a book cannot be
interpreted as the readability for the whole book since not all texts were analyzed.
The mean scores from the Flesch Reading Ease formula were also converted to
grade levels according to Table 1 in order to make a comparison with the FleschKincaid readability formula.
2.4 Hypothesis
The hypothesis was that the different textbook series would have approximately the
same readability level and that the readability scores would increase with the
intended grade of the books and assigned levels of the texts.
16
3 Results
3.1 Readability Progress of Textbooks within Series
The results indicate that all textbook series investigated in this study do have a
progression of text difficulty from school year 7 to 9, see Figures 1-2 which present
the average grade levels of texts according to the formulas Flesch Reading Ease and
Flesch-Kincaid respectively.
Figure 1. Average Flesch Reading Ease Grade Levels of the Textbooks
Figure 2. Average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels of the Textbooks
However, the progression pattern between the textbook series differs; only Good Stuff
shows a linear progression. As seen in Figures 1-2, both readability formulas used in
this study rendered similar progression trends within the four textbook series as
regards their reading grades.
However, the estimated grade levels of the two formulas differ quite drastically.
The grade levels from Flesch-Kincaid range from 3.3 to 5.8 whereas Flesch Reading
Ease levels range from 6.4 to 7.5, see Figures 1-2 and Table 2, where the average
17
grade levels of both formulas together with the average text lengths for all textbooks
in the study are presented.
Table 2. Average readability scores and grade levels for the analyzed texts in each
book with average word counts (standard deviations within brackets)
Flesch Reading Ease
Score
Grade level
Year 7
Year 8
Number of Words
Words/Text
Total
86.1
(10)
6.4
3.3
(1.9)
384
(186)
6,917
Happy
80.3
(10.9)
7
4.9
(1.9)
464
(266)
12,538
Time
85.1
(8.1)
6.5
3.6
(1.8)
381
(52)
8,376
Wings
82.6
(15.5)
6.7
3.9
(2.8)
256
(102)
5,378
Good Stuff
83.1
(11.5)
6.7
4.1
(2.3)
525
(254)
8,405
Happy
80.2
(8.7)
7
5
(1.6)
583
(159)
12,989
Time
84.7
(7.7)
6.5
4
(1.8)
486
(110)
9,725
Wings
76.4
(12.1)
7.4
5.8
(2.5)
417
(364)
7,925
80.5
(16)
6.9
4.7
(3.1)
614
(380)
9,819
Happy
74.8
(11.1)
7.5
5.8
(1.9)
599
(225)
10,783
Time
79.8
(9.3)
7
5.2
(1.8)
526
(73)
9,462
Wings
79.1
(12.9)
7.1
5.4
(2.6)
1,005
(586)
12,055
Good Stuff
Good Stuff
Year 9
Flesch-Kincaid
Grade level
3.1.1 Good Stuff
Both formulas indicate that there is a progression of readability within the textbook
series Good Stuff from school year 7 to 9 and that this progression is quite evenly
18
spread, see Figures 1-2. The readability grade level of the chosen texts increases from
year 7 to 9 by 0.5 from grade level 6.4 to 6.9 for Flesch Reading Ease and by 1.4 from
grade level 3.3 to 4.7 for Flesch-Kincaid, see Table 2.
Table 2 also shows that the average number of words per analyzed text within
each of the textbooks increases with every year, not only for Good Stuff, but for all
textbook series in this study.
3.1.2 Happy
The progression trend of average readability according to the Reading Ease formula
are similar to that of the Flesch-Kincaid within the textbook series Happy, see Figures
1 and 2. From school year 7 to 9, the formulas show an increase of 0.5 and 0.9 grade
levels respectively, ranging from 7 to 7.5 for Flesch Reading Ease and 4.9 to 5.8 for
Flesch-Kincaid, see Table 2.
However, as seen in Table 2, there is hardly any difference in difficulty at all
between the texts for school years 7 and 8 according to the Flesch Reading Ease, and
the Flesch-Kincaid also indicate a higher increase between school years 8 and 9 than
between years 7 and 8.
3.1.3 Time
Although the progression in Time for each year differs between formulas, both Flesch
Reading Ease formula and the Flesch-Kincaid indicate that the difficulty of the texts
in year 9 on average are more difficult than the ones for year 7, see Figures 1 and 2.
The Flesch Reading Ease grade level increases by 0.5 from 6.5, in the textbook for
year 7, to 7.0 in the textbook for year 9. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level increases by
1.6 from 3.6 to 5.2.
However, as with the progression for the textbook series Happy, and as seen in
Table 2, both formulas indicate that the main increase of text difficulty occurs
between school years 8 and 9.
19
3.1.4 Wings
Also the series Wings shows an increase in the readability of texts from years 7 to 9
but the results are uncharacteristic as the texts with highest average difficulty appear
in year 8, see Figures 1 and 2. Year 8 aside, the series range from Reading Ease grade
level 6.7 to 7.1 and from Flesch-Kincaid grade level 3.9 to 5.4, see Table 2; giving an
increase of 0.4 and 1.5 grades respectively.
3.2 A Comparison between the Textbook Series for Each Year
The comparison between the average readability of texts in the four textbook series
studied shows that they are on different levels. The study shows a general pattern in
the relationship between the four textbook series, although school year 8 shows a
different pattern than years 7 and 9, see Figures 1-2 and Table 2. According to the
results from both formulas, the grading between the selected texts in the four series
in years 7 and 9 from the easiest to the most difficult is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Good Stuff
Time
Wings
Happy
The mean values within a series over all three years show the same pattern. Thus,
Happy is the textbook series which, of the four studied, in general has the most
difficult texts. The difference between Good Stuff and Happy are quite considerable
(e.g. 1.6 grade levels in year 7 and 1.1 grade levels in year 9 according to the Reading
Ease, se Table 2). The readability grade levels for both formulas for the texts analyzed
in Happy for year 7 are already slightly higher than the texts in Good Stuff for year 9
(Reading Ease 7 as compared to 6.9 and Flesch-Kincaid 4.9 as compared to 4.7, see
Table 2).
3.3 A Comparison of Levels within Textbook Series
Three of the four textbook series in this study, namely Good Stuff, Happy and Time,
have texts which are divided according to level. In the following the readability
grade levels of the selection of such texts within each series are compared.
20
3.3.1 Good Stuff
According to the publisher, the easier texts in Good Stuff are green and the more
difficult ones are yellow. In Table 3, these levels are compared to the readability
grade levels according to the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid formulas.
The table also shows the average texts length per level and year.
Table 3. Average readability scores and grade levels for the analyzed texts according
to level (G = green; Y = yellow) in the series Good Stuff with word counts (standard
deviations within brackets)
Year 7-9
Year 9
Year 8
Year 7
Flesch Reading Ease
Score
Grade Level
Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level
Number of Words
Words/Text
Total
G
85.9
(11)
6.4
3.1
(2.1)
318
(112)
2,861
Y
86.4
(9.5)
6.4
3.5
(1.8)
451
(227)
4,056
G
87
(14.4)
6.3
3.3
(2.7)
417
(211)
3,336
Y
79.2
(6.5)
7.1
5
(1.4)
634
(259)
5,069
G
84.6
(17.4)
6.5
3.6
(3.5)
407
(182)
3,252
Y
76.5
(14.6)
7.3
5.8
(2.5)
821
(422)
6,567
G
85.8
(13.8)
6.4
3.3
(2.7)
378
9,449
Y
80.9
(11.1)
6.9
4.7
(2.1)
638
15,962
The comparison shows that the yellow texts in general are more difficult
according to both readability formulas, especially for year 8 and 9. On average over
all three years the difference between these two levels are 0.5 grade levels according
to Flesch Reading Ease and 1.4 grade levels according to Flesch-Kincaid, see Table 3.
Table 3 also shows that the yellow texts are overall longer. In the textbook for
year 9 they are even on average more than twice as long.
21
3.3.2 Happy
The average readability grade levels of texts on each of the three levels A, B and C in
the textbook series Happy was calculated. An analysis of the total for school years 7 to
9 shows that the degree of text difficulty does increase slightly with level, see the
bottom of Table 4.
Table 4. Average readability scores and grade levels for the analyzed texts according
to level in the series Happy with word counts (standard deviations within brackets)
Year 7-9
Year 9
Year 8
Year 7
Flesch Reading Ease
Score
Grade Level
Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level
Number of Words
Words/Text
Total
A
80
(8.4)
7
5.2
(1.6)
361
(133)
3,247
B
80.2
(15.6)
7
4.8
(2.7)
398
(238)
3,581
C
80.8
(8.5)
6.9
4.8
(1.6)
634
(326)
5,710
A
85.8
(4.1)
6.4
4.1
(0.6)
517
(104)
4,132
B
78
(7.3)
7.2
5.4
(1.5)
554
(87)
4,435
C
76.9
(11.1)
7.3
5.6
(2.1)
678
(220)
5,422
A
78.5
(6.4)
7.1
5.1
(1)
460
(129)
2,761
B
74.2
(7.9)
7.6
5.8
(1.6)
531
(127)
3,187
C
71.6
(17)
7.8
6.3
(3)
806
(243)
4,835
A
81.6
(7.1)
6.8
4.8
(1.2)
441
10,140
B
77.9
(11.2)
7.2
5.3
(2)
487
11,203
C
77
(12)
7.3
5.5
(2)
694
15,967
22
As seen in Table 4, the Flesch Reading Ease scores imply that texts on level A on
average over all three school years score 0.4 grade levels lower than texts on level B,
which in turn score 0.1 grade levels lower than texts on level C. The equivalent scores
from Flesch-Kincaid show a general increase of 0.5 grade levels from A to B and 0.2
grade levels from B to C. This gives a total difference in text difficulty, from level A
to level C, of 0.5 grade levels according to Flesch Reading Ease and 0.7 grade levels
according to Flesch-Kincaid.
However, as Table 4 shows, these differences mainly appear in the textbooks for
year 8 and 9. In the textbook for year 7 Flesch Reading Ease scores show practically
no difference at all and Flesch-Kincaid actually suggests that texts on level A are the
most difficult and that texts on level B and C generally are on the same difficulty
level.
The study also shows that, for each textbook in the series Happy, the average
text length increases with every level, see Table 4.
3.3.3 Time
In the series Time the texts on level B are generally longer than the texts on level A.
This holds true for all textbooks in the series, see Table 5. However, the texts on level
B in Time are generally not more difficult than the ones on level A according to the
readability scores, see Table 5.
On the contrary, as seen in Table 5, both the Flesch Reading Ease and the
Flesch-Kincaid formulas indicate that for year 7 and 9, as well as for the series in
total, texts on level A are actually more difficult than texts on level B. The difference
over all three years is 0.3 grade levels according to Flesch Reading Ease and 0.7 grade
levels according to Flesch-Kincaid.
23
Table 5. Average readability scores and grade levels for the analyzed texts according
to level in the series Time with word counts (standard deviations within brackets)
Year 7-9
Year 9
Year 8
Year 7
Flesch Reading Ease
Score
Grade Level
Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level
Number of Words
Words/Text
Total
A
83.5
(7.8)
6.6
3.8
(1.6)
354
(21)
3895
B
86.7
(8.5)
6.3
3.4
(2)
407
(60)
4481
A
85.5
(8.8)
6.4
3.8
(2)
423
(70)
4227
B
83.9
(6.9)
6.6
4.2
(1.7)
550
(109)
5498
A
74.9
(9.1)
7.5
6.2
(1.5)
496
(51)
4467
B
84.8
(6.8)
6.5
4.1
(1.6)
555
(82)
4995
A
81.6
(9.4)
6.8
4.5
(2)
420
12,589
B
85.2
(7.3)
6.5
3.8
(1.8)
499
14,974
24
4 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to analyze texts from the four English textbook series
Good Stuff, Happy, Time and Wings as regards their readability according to the two
formulas Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid. The analysis shows that the series
are on somewhat different difficult levels and that there is a considerable range in the
level of difficulty between the texts. As hypothesized, there is on average a
progression of text difficulty from school year 7 to 9 within each series. There is also
in general such a progression from texts on assigned easier levels to the more
difficult ones.
It is, from this study alone, difficult to assign precise readability grade levels to
the four textbook series studied. First and foremost, readability formulas are not an
exact measure (Binkley, 1988: 117; Bruce & Rubin, 1988: 21; DuBay, 2004: 56).
Secondly, the grade levels for the two readability formulas used in this study are
intended for native speakers, and not Swedish learners, of English and are therefore
not fully applicable. Furthermore, a strict conversion of grade levels from USA to
Sweden is not sufficient since it does not take into consideration the fact that English
teaching does not normally start from the beginning of the Swedish school system.
To simply move the zero point to when English teaching starts needs not render an
equivalent difficulty grade level either; Swedish students may be more proficient
readers in general at that point, which may affect the understanding of English texts
as well.
Thirdly, few manual corrections for flaws found in the formulas in Microsoft
Word 2007 have been made in the study. This fact alters the readability scores to a
certain extent. However, it was assumed that these small alterations would not affect
the general relationship between textbooks and levels.
Furthermore the grade level results from the two readability formulas used in
this study differ quite drastically. For each school year the formulas differ between
1.6 and 3.1 grade levels and on average 2.25 grade levels. The average grade levels of
texts taken from these textbook series do not even overlap; the highest grade level
according to Flesch-Kincaid is 5.8 whereas Flesch Reading Ease grade levels start at
25
6.4. These differences are quite surprising since a study by Klare shows a higher
agreement between the two formulas (Klare, 1988: 24-25). On the other hand, the
most common readability formulas are known to occasionally disagree as much as
three grade levels (Gunning, 2003: 183).
However, the discrepancy between formulas is not of great importance for the
results since this study did not aim at assigning the strict average readability grade
level of each individual textbook and each difficulty level. Instead, the study aimed
at finding the potential difference of average text difficulty between such books and
levels, which readability formulas normally manage to do (Gunning, 2003: 181).
A factor that may have affected the outcome of the study is that aspects which
are important for reading comprehension (see Burns, 2006; Davison, 1988: 38;
Gilliland, 1972: 96; Zakaluk & Samuels, 1988: 122) have been excluded from analysis.
Therefore it is difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the present study as
regards how comprehensible the texts really are.
However, the results from the present study is supported by the objectiveness
of readability formulas (DuBay, 2004: 3; Fry, 2002: 287) and their high validity in
general (Fry, 1977, cited in Fry, 2002: 291), which is particularly high for Flesch
Reading Ease formula (DuBay, 2006: 97). The study is also strengthened by the fact
that texts have been analyzed in their full length, which according to Klare (1988: 31)
gives a more reliable result.
4.1 Readability Progress of Textbooks within Series
On average, each of the four textbook series studied shows a progression of text
difficulty from school year 7 to 9. Both readability formulas used in this study
rendered similar progression trends within the four textbook series as regards their
reading grades. However, the progression of difficulty per year differs between the
series and the texts in Wings do not have a typical progression as the texts for school
year 8 general are the most difficult. This might be caused by a high proportion of
nonfiction texts in Wings for year 8, see appendix 5.
26
This overall result was expected and is in alignment with the study by
Björnsson and Tideholm (1974) which shows a general increase of readability in
English Textbooks with grade level. The result is encouraging as this means that the
textbooks continuously offer the students challenging texts as they in time develop
their reading comprehension skills in accordance with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
Development. The increase of text difficulty is also needed in order to offer students
written material ‚slightly over their current level of development‛, which is what
experts in reading recommend for instructional reading (DuBay, 2004: 56), which text
in English textbook series generally are intended for.
However, although the results from the present study show a general
progression within all four textbook series, the readability scores also show that the
text difficulty varies significantly within each textbook, and not only by assigned
level. One study indicates that readability formulas which are based on syllable
counts, such as Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid, underrate ‚nonfiction‛ texts
(Gunning, 2003: 178). If this is true, the actual difficulty range of the analyzed texts is
even greater, since in this study in general the texts with the highest readability
grade levels were nonfiction texts. Whether or not such a variety is intended is open
for discussion, but it may be one way of matching texts with the students’ individual
levels, which is essential for comprehension (Gilliland, 1972: 12; Gunning, 2003: 175;
Zakaluk & Samuels, 1988: 140). As a textbook is intended to suit most students in a
class it has to meet a general level of comprehension. Certainly, not all students in a
class are at the same level. Therefore perhaps textbooks, such as the ones studied,
which offers texts on different levels of difficulty are to strive for.
4.2 A Comparison between the Textbook Series for Each Year
To match written texts with the students’ individual levels of text comprehension is
especially important for required reading (Gunning, 2003: 184). Therefore, the
readability of textbooks and how English textbook series differ from one another
needs to be considered. The readability scores could be used as a foundation for
choosing written texts on appropriate level for students. However, readability
27
formulas generally need to be complemented with other methods in the process of
choosing appropriate texts (Gunning, 2003: 182; Klare, 1988: 32).
The fact, that studies have shown readability to be especially important when
there is a lack of interest (DuBay, 2004: 29), further indicates that an awareness of the
readability of textbooks in school may be very important. As many teachers know,
there is hardly any guarantee that students are interested in required reading. For
optional reading the matching is not as important as students’ motivation can
facilitate their reading comprehension (Fry, 2002: 289).
Since only parts of the books have been analyzed in this study, it is difficult to
draw any definite conclusions about the difference in readability between the four
textbook series. However, the study indicates differences between the series. The
textbook series which, according to the present study, in general have the easiest
texts are Good Stuff and Time, while Wings and Happy have more difficult texts. The
difference between the series is not always significant but between Good Stuff and
Happy it is quite considerable.
As previously mentioned, experts in reading recommend written texts on a
higher level for instructional reading (DuBay, 2004: 56). However, Gunning (2003:
182) asserts that it is better with too easy than too difficult texts. For this reason
Wings and Happy are perhaps not suitable textbook series for all classes. On the other
hand, since we, from this study alone, cannot assign an actual average Swedish grade
level of the textbooks, all four series may be easy enough for the intended school
years.
4.3 A Comparison of Levels within Textbook Series
The two series Good Stuff and Happy both have texts on different difficulty levels,
according to the publishers (Liber, 2010; Gleerups, 2010). Theses difficulty levels
were confirmed by the readability analysis in this study. Even though the results for
Happy are somewhat inconclusive as the textbook for school year 7 show a different
pattern, on average over all three school years, both formulas imply an increase of
text difficulty with each level. However, it needs to be pointed out that rather few
28
texts have been analyzed for each level, especially in Happy for school year 3 in which
only 6 texts on each difficulty level were included in the study.
That written English school texts in Sweden divided by difficulty levels differ as
regards their readability scores has also been shown in a study by Björnsson &
Tideholm (1974). Their study shows that the textbooks intended for ‚Särskild kurs‛
in English generally are more difficult than those intended for ‚Allmän kurs‛
according to the readability formula lix.
Today, different written texts for students on different levels may be found
either within a leveled textbook or by using complementary texts. The findings in the
present study that the series Good Stuff and Happy have such a progression of text
difficulty indicate that these materials are appropriate for individualization.
The levels in Time do not follow the same pattern. The texts on level B in Time
are generally not more difficult than the ones on level A, according to the readability
scores. However, the publisher does not explicitly claim that the texts on level B are
supposed to be more difficult, just slightly longer and more substantial (Bonnier
Utbildning, 2010). That the texts on level B in general are longer were confirmed by
this study and the average text length also increases with every level for the series
Good Stuff and Happy. Such an increase of average text length was also found with
every school year, in all four textbook series. Thereby, according to these textbook
authors, text difficulty seems to be associated with text length.
4.4 Suggestions for Further Research
In order to validate the results from this study it would be interesting to compare
them with students’ understanding of the analyzed texts in the study. Validation
against other readability formulas would also be of interest. Another suggestion for
further research would be an analysis of the texts with regards to other factors which
have been shown to affect reading comprehension.
It would also be interesting to complement the results with interviews with
different textbook authors to investigate what they are aiming at in terms of
29
differentiating the books and the levels of the texts. Furthermore, the progression of
new words introduced with every chapter could be the subject of research.
30
Final References
Primary Sources
Bermheden, C., Winblad, M., Watcyn-Jones, P. and Wahlgren, S. 1996. First Time:
engelska för år 7 - textboken. Stockholm: Bonnier utbildning.
Bermheden, C., Winblad, M., Watcyn-Jones, P. and Wahlgren, S. 1997. Second Time:
engelska för år 8 - textboken. Stockholm: Bonnier utbildning.
Bermheden, C., Winblad, M., Watcyn-Jones, P. and Wahlgren, S. 1998. Third Time:
engelska för år 9 - textboken. Stockholm: Bonnier utbildning.
Coombs, A., Hagvärn, R., Johansson, K. and Saveska Knutagård, M. 2002. Good stuff
B, Textbook. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Coombs, A., Bayard, A. and Hagvärn, R. 2003. Good stuff C, Textbook. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell.
Coombs, A., Bayard, A. and Hagvärn, R. 2004. Good stuff D, Textbook. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell.
Glover, M., Glover, R., Hedberg, B. and Malmberg, P. 2001. Wings Base Book 7.
Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur & Kultur.
Glover, M., Glover, R., Hedberg, B. and Malmberg, P. 2002. Wings Base Book 8.
Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur & Kultur.
Glover, M., Glover, R., Hedberg, B. and Malmberg, P. 2003. Wings Base Book 9.
Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur & Kultur.
Peterson, L., Sutcliffe, C., Johansson, K. and Bergman, K. 2004. Happy. Textbook No. 1.
Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB.
Peterson, L., Sutcliffe, C., Johansson, K. and Bergman, K. 2005. Happy. Textbook No. 2.
Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB.
Peterson, L., Sutcliffe, C., Johansson, K. and Bergman, K. 2006. Happy. Textbook No. 3.
Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB.
Secondary Sources
Anderson, R. C. and Davison, A. 1988. Conceptual and Empirical Bases of
Readability Formulas. In Davison, A. and Green, G. M. (eds). Linguistic Complexity
and Text Comprehension. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2353.
Binkley, M. R. 1988. New Ways of Assessing Text Difficulty. In Zakaluk, B. L. and
Samuel, S. J. (eds.). Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future. Newark: International
Reading Association, 97-120.
Björnsson, C. H. and Tideholm, R. 1974. Lärbarhetsprövning av engelsk skoltext.
Stockholm: Pedagogiskt centrum i Stockholm.
Bonnier Utbildning. 2010. Time. <http://www.bonnierutbildning.se/m2/Grundskolan
-6-9/Engelska/Engelska/Baslaromedel/Time/> [Accessed on 26 January 2010.]
Bruce, B. and Rubin, A. 1988. Readability Formulas: Matching Tool and Task. In
Davison, A. and Green, G. M. (eds). Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 5-22.
31
Burns, B. 2006. I Don’t Have to Count Syllables on My Fingers Anymore: Easier
Ways to Find Readability and Level Books. Illinois Reading Council Journal 34 (1),
34-40.
Chall, J. S. 1988. The Beginning Years. In Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuel, S. J. (eds.).
Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future. Newark: International Reading
Association, 2-13.
Davison, A. 1988. Assigning Grade Levels without Formulas: Some Case Studies. In
Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuel, S. J. (eds.). Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future.
Newark: International Reading Association, 36-45.
Davison, A. and Green, G. M. (eds). 1988. Linguistic Complexity and Text
Comprehension. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
DuBay, W. H. 2004. The Principles of Readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information.
DuBay, W. E. (ed.). 2006. The Classic Readability Studies. Costa Mesa: Impact
Information.
Flesch, R. 2006. A New Readability Yardstick. In DuBay, W. E (ed.). The Classic
Readability Studies. Costa Mesa: Impact Information, 99-112.
Fry, E. B. 1988. Writeability: The Principles of Writing for Increased Comprehension.
In Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuel, S. J. (eds.). Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future.
Newark: International Reading Association, 77-95.
Fry, E. 2002. Readability Versus Leveling. The Reading Teacher 56 (3), 286-291.
Gilliland, J. 1972. Readability. London: University of London Press Ltd.
Gleerups. 2010. Happy för skolår 7-9. <www.gleerups.se/se/grundskola_6-9/engelska/
?ew_15_cat_id=333&ew_15_p_id=47916&product_category_id=1268&groupdetail
=true> [Accessed on 26 January 2010.]
Gray, W. S. and Leary, B. E. 1972 (1935). What Makes a Book Readable: With Special
Reference to Adults of Limited Reading Ability: An initial study. High Wycombe:
University Microfilms Limited.
Gunning, T. G. 2003. The Role of Readability in Today’s Classrooms. Topics in
Language Disorders 23 (3), 175-189.
Hall, J. C. 2006. The Readability of Original Articles in Surgical Journals. ANZ Journal
of Surgery 76, 68-70.
Klare, G. R. 1988. The Formative Years. In Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuel, S. J. (eds.).
Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future. Newark: International Reading
Association, 14-34.
Liber. 2010. Good Stuff – Skolår 6-9. <http://www.liber.se/Grundskola/Grundskolaar-6-9/Engelska/Grundlaromedel/Good-Stuff---skolar-6-9/> [Accessed on 14
January 2010.]
Microsoft Office Online. <office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HP101485061033.aspx >
[Accessed on 22 April 2010.]
Natur & Kultur. 2010. Wings 6-9. <http://www.nok.se/nok/laromedel/seriesidor/w/
Wings/> [Accessed on 14 January 2010.]
Oxford English Dictionary Online. <www.dictionary.oed.com>. [Accessed on 27 April
2010.]
Stein Dzaldov, B. and Peterson, S. 2005. Book Leveling and Readers. The Reading
Teacher 59 (3), 222-229.
32
Vogel, M. and Washburne, C. 2006. An Objective Method of Determining Grade
Placement of Children’s Reading Material. In DuBay, W. E (ed.). The Classic
Readability Studies. Costa Mesa: Impact Information, 18-26.
Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuels, S. J. 1988. Toward a New Approach to Predicting Text
Comprehensibility. In Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuel, S. J. (eds.). Readability: Its Past,
Present, and Future. Newark: International Reading Association, 121-144.
33
Appendix 1
Enable Readability Statistics in Word 2007
1.
Click the Microsoft Office Button
, and then click Word Options.
2.
Click Proofing.
3.
Make sure Check grammar with spelling is selected.
4.
Under When correcting grammar in Word, select the Show readability statistics check box.
(Microsoft Office Online, 2010)
34
Appendix 2
Texts Analyzed in Good Stuff with Limitations
Only text on the pages mentioned in the tables below have been included in the
study, whether or not the chapter in question continues on the following page(-s).
Also included in the analysis are:
-
The additional information in dialogues and plays (usually in italics)
-
First paragraphs written as full sentences, whether in italics or bold or not
If not otherwise stated, the following have been excluded from analysis:
-
Headlines
-
Names introducing a person’s turn in dialogues
-
Captions to illustrations
-
Author names and signatures (often with time and place for letters)
-
Additional information included in pictures or within ‚squares‛
-
Tasks and exercises for, and instructions to, the reader (circled question
marks)
-
Short facts and lists of items
-
Tables and other illustrations
-
Extra Good Stuff
-
All blue chapters
35
Good Stuff B
Level
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Title
Money, Money, Money
The Almighty Dollar2
Fast Food
A Bottle of Coke
Planning the School Play
My First Class
You First
From a Balloon
The World Says Hi!3
What the Shark Vomited
Hanna and Her Horses
Do Horses Remember?
The Beautiful Game
Aussie Rules Football4
Stars
They Died So Young
A Swedish Tradition
Me and Jack
Eleven lines on page 10 and three lines on page 13 included.
Eight lines on page 56 and three lines on page 57 included.
4 The list of rules and all bold text are excluded.
2
3
Pages
6-7
10-13
18
22-25
28-29
32
46-47
50-51
56-57
62-63
66-67
70-71
76-77
80-81
86-87
90-91
118
120-122
36
Good Stuff C
Level
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Title
The Great Wall of China
A Rude Awakening
Champion Sisters
Winners are Grinners
Tonight’s Plans
The Wrong Video
Was It a Crime?
The Great Train Robbery
The NHL
Spirit Bears
Maundy Thursday
Birmingham
Be My Valentine
Christmas in Australia
Friendly Advice
Keep away from Phil
Pages
6-7
10-11
18
22-23
30-31
34-37
44-45
48+50
56-57
60-61
66-67
70-73
76-77
80-81
88-89
93-95
Good Stuff D
Level
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Green
Yellow
Title
Jill’s Sister’s Nose
It Was the Running He Loved
The Fur Jacket
The Maze
I Let Gatecrashers Steal My Sister’s Car!
Ricardo
Feeling the Pressure
Shiftless Drifter
Ireland — On the Edge of Europe
The Informer
The Negotiator
Peace in East Timor
At the Roskilde Music Festival
The Sex Pistols
I Have a Dream: The Life and Death of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Gentlemen, Your Verdict
Pages
6-7
11
18-19
22-23
30-31
34-36
44-45
48-50
58
63-65
68-69
72-73
78-79
82-85
90-92
98-102
37
Appendix 3
Texts Analyzed in Happy with Limitations
All first A, B and C texts from the chapters that include all these levels are used.
Consequently the chapter Let’s Talk London from Happy 1 has been cut.
Only text on the pages mentioned in the tables below have been included in the
study, whether or not the chapter in question continues on the following page(-s).
Also included in the analysis are:
-
The additional information in dialogues and plays (usually in italics)
-
First paragraphs written as full sentences, whether in italics or bold or not
If not otherwise stated, the following have been excluded from analysis:
-
Headlines
-
Names introducing a person’s turn in dialogues
-
Captions to illustrations
-
Author names and signatures (often with time and place for letters)
-
Additional information included in pictures or within ‚squares‛
-
Tasks and exercises for, and instructions to, the reader
-
Short facts and lists of items
-
Tables and other illustrations
-
‚Have a laugh‛s
-
Comic strips
-
Stars with further explanations
-
Additional texts within squares (often marked with +)
-
(Embedded) tasks
-
Texts marked ‘reading for pleasure’
38
Happy Textbook No. 1
Level
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Title
It’s a Cat’s Life
The Rescue
Animals – Friends or Fur?5
The Race of My Life
Sport Is For Everybody6
Football Mad
The Faces in the Floor
Painting the Town7
A Meeting with Aliens
Red Nose Day8
Festivals Around the World9
Thanksgiving
My Ideal Meal
Freaky Food Facts10
Americans Are Getting Fatter
Dress Code in School11
The Empty School
First Day of School
The Best of Everything
Oh No
Clothes to Die For
A Letter to America
Kissing the Blarney Stone
The Princess and the Beggar
The Earth – 46 Years Old!?
Messages to Outer Space
The Ultimate Adventure Holiday12
Pages
6-7
8-10
12-15
20-22
24+26-27
28-31
36-37
38-41
44-45
50-51
52-55
56-57
70-72
73
78-79
84-85
86-89
90-94
98-99
100
104-105
110-111
112-113
118-119
124-125
126-127
131-134
All letters included without their headlines.
All text within squares included, even the text in bold.
7 The questions and answers for the reader are excluded.
8 On page 51 only the first seven lines were included.
9 The content in the letters included; no signatures and addresses
10 The facts are not considered to be items on a list and are therefore included (not top twenty)
11 All letters included without their headlines.
12 The triangles are not considered to make up items on a list; all text is therefore included.
5
6
39
Happy Textbook No. 2
Level
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Title
They Make Me Blush!13
My Parents Know what Is Best for Me!
Barnardo’s Gave Me My Life
My Dad’s a Magician14
The Trick that Went Wrong
Super Intelligence
Adventures of a Backpacker15
Dreamtime
Walkabout
Having Your Own Car16
In the Wild, Wild West
The Rocket
The Gunpowder Plot
The Great Fire of London
Christmas in the Trenches
Problems, Problems<
Just Friends?17
Watching a Murder
An Englishman in New York18
A New York School19
Ground Zero
My Kind of Movies
Stunt Girls
Bollywood
Pages
8-9
10-12
13-15
20-21
22-24
25-27
34-35
36-38
42-45
50-52
53-54
58-59
68-69
71-72
73-75
80-82
85-87
88+90-91
98-100
101-103
106-109
114+116
117-118
124-126
This text was chosen instead of the too short text What Are Your Parents Like?
All text included.
15 The first line included is ‛Dear Mum and Dad,‛.
16 All text included.
17 This text was chosen instead of C U l 8 r, which has the form of a chat and therefore is not typical.
18 All text included.
19 All text included; even student answers.
13
14
40
Happy Textbook No. 3
Level
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Title
It Started with the King
Singing Means Everything
Watching Music20
The Laughing Sumo21
A Beautiful Morning
Bushido – the Samuray Way
Ever had a really good idea?22
Poor Inventors!
From Babbage to Gates – the Story of Computers
Down the Niagara Falls in a Barrel23
What Makes Toronto Special?24
Vote for Simanuk Nuqingaq25
Letters to Auntie
No Kissing!
Noughts and Crosses
Christopher Columbus – Hero or Villain?
The Death of Abraham Lincoln
The Escape
Pages
4-6
10-11
15-17
27-28
29-30
33-35
50-52
56-58
62-64
70+72
76-78
82-84
100-102
106-107
112-115
122-124
129-130
135-138
Lyrics included
This text was chosen instead of How to Be Normal in Japan, which is a list of facts about Japan.
22 All text except the list of hints included.
23 Postscript included
24 All text included.
25 The last three lines on page 84 excluded.
20
21
41
Appendix 4
Texts Analyzed in Time with Limitations
Only text on the pages mentioned in the tables below have been included in the
study, whether or not the chapter in question continues on the following page(-s).
Also included in the analysis are:
-
The additional information in dialogues and plays (usually in italics)
-
First paragraphs written as full sentences, whether in italics or bold or not
If not otherwise stated, the following have been excluded from analysis:
-
Headlines
-
Names introducing a person’s turn in dialogues
-
Captions to illustrations
-
Author names and signatures (often with time and place for letters)
-
Additional information included in pictures or within ‚squares‛
-
Tasks and exercises for, and instructions to, the reader
-
Short facts and lists of items
-
Tables and other illustrations
-
Tracks
-
Follow ups
42
First Time
Level
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Title
Save Chou-Chou26
Looking for Mr Stevens
Jennifer
The Fellow Passenger
Last One in
Autumn Leaves27
The Watchman
Hit the Road!
Britain Is More Than England
O Come All Ye Faithful
Two Worlds
The Lonely Child
E-Double Three-O28
The School Lunch
Super Bowl
Just Like in Italy
What’s in a Face?
Alice
The Stars Are Born
The Boston Tea Party
Friends
Mark, Tom and Huck
All italics included
The numbers are not considered to be items on a list.
28 Dates excluded
26
27
Pages
6-7
8-9
12-13
14-15
18-19
20-21
24-25
26-27
30-31
32-33
36-37
38-39
42-43
44-45
48-49
50-51
54-55
56-57
60-61
62-63
66-67
68-69
43
Second Time
Level
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Title
Where’s Your Manners?
Take a Deep Breath29
Waltzing Matilda
Botany Bay30
The Ad
Opportunity Knocks31
The Rabbit
Monty
Two Sisters
Of Mice and Men
Hollywood Dreams
The Wizard
The Hero
One for All
The Tunnel
The Globe
Walking in the Moonlight
In the Wilderness
Good News
Communication Problems
Question headline on page 9 excluded; all answers included.
Ballad included
31 Text below picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
29
30
Pages
6-7
8-9
12
14-15
18-19
20-21
24-25
26-27
30-31
32-33
36-37
38-39
42-43
44-45
48-49
50-51
54-55
56-57
60-61
62-65
44
Third Time
Level
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Title
The Cathy and Claire Page32
My Eyes Adored You
Crimes That Went Wrong33
Welcome to Our Bank
The Rise of a Nation34
I See You
Albert and the Lion
Up, Up and Away!
Keiko35
The Glade
The Wise Man
They Play Frogs
Urban Legends
Footsteps in the Night
Resistance!
Love Thy Neighbour
Country on the Go
Famine
All text except headline and signatures included.
All text except headline included.
34 The questions are not considered to be regular headlines and are therefore included.
35 Date and place excluded.
32
33
Pages
6-7
8-9
12-13
14-15
18-19
20-21
24-25
26-27
30-31
32-33
36-37
38
42-43
44-45
48-49
50-51
54-55
56-57
45
Appendix 5
Texts Analyzed in Wings with Limitations
Only text on the pages mentioned in the tables below have been included in the
study, whether or not the chapter in question continues on the following page(-s).
Also included in the analysis are:
-
The additional information in dialogues and plays (usually in italics)
-
First paragraphs written as full sentences, whether in italics or bold or not
If not otherwise stated, the following have been excluded from analysis:
-
Texts without main headlines surrounded by dots
-
Headlines
-
Names introducing a person’s turn in dialogues
-
Captions to illustrations
-
Author names and signatures (often with time and place for letters)
-
Additional information included in pictures or within ‚squares‛
-
Tasks and exercises for, and instructions to, the reader
-
Short facts and lists of items
-
Tables and other illustrations
46
Wings Base Book 7
Level
-
Title
Party Talk
Why English in<36
Can You Describe Them?37
The Case of the Two Leo Browns38
The Marrog
Ireland
I’m Starving!39
The Fable of Poor Eddie40
Jamaica
Can You Give Me a Hand?41
Saturday Morning in Elm Tree Road42
Not in My House
The Ghosts of Borley43
Zambia44
How Stupid of Me!45
High Beams46
People of the Third Planet47
The Folk Who Live in Backward Town48
India
New Zealand49
Australia50
Pages
10-11
14-15
32-33
41
42
43
56-57
66
67-68
78-79
82-83
86-87
88-89
91-92
102-103
110-110
112-113
114
115-116
123
125
The headlines are not full sentences and are therefore not included although they are questions.
Text next to picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
38 Blue text excluded.
39 Text next to picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
40 Including ‛MORAL‛ at the end of the story
41 Text next to picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
42 First paragraph included.
43 All text except words in italics included; the numbers are not considered to be items on a list.
44 Blue text included.
45 Text below picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
46 Text in italics not included.
47 Bold text excluded. Narration and dialogue included.
48 Only the poem included.
49 The paragraph named Climate only include one sentence.
50 Blu text and words in italics excluded.
36
37
47
Wings Base Book 8
Level
-
Title
Trips Week
Politeness pays51
Britain
The invaders52
England
Once upon a Christmas
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
At School in Australia53
The Test
Get Out of Bed!54
USA55
The United States of America56
The Wisdom of the Old Ones
Star for a Day57
Travelling in San Francisco58
A Day’s Wait
The Americans Thought of it First!59
Pages
17-20
28
32-33
34-35
36
47-49
59
62
64
76-78
80-81
82
90
91-92
96-97
107-109
114
117-119
124-125
Only the first six lines of the chapter are included.
All text included; the numbers are not considered to be items on a list.
53 Text below picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
54 Only the poem included
55 No headlines included, although they are questions.
56 No headlines included, although they are questions.
57 Text below picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
58 Only the first eight lines of the chapter are included.
59 All text included except captions to illustrations; the numbers are not considered to be items on a
list.
51
52
48
Wings Base Book 9
Level
-
Title
All Summer in a Day60
‚Need a Haircut, Greaser?‛
‘I’m Not Getting Married at Seventeen!’61
Making Up
The Olympic Games
Survival at Sea
Equal Rights
Wargames
The Red Cross and the Red Crescent62
Getting There
Canada
South Africa63
The author information excluded.
Text next to picture included; regarded as the first paragraph.
62 List of examples excluded (no full sentences).
63 On page 126 only the first five lines were included.
60
61
Pages
21-24
32-36
51-54
55-58
64
67-70
85-88
96-99
104-105
118-120
122
125-126